ERIC EJ1007080: An Inquiry into Educational Technologists' Conceptions of Their Philosophies of Teaching and Technology

2013·0.51 MB·English

by  ERIC

Volume
 39(2)

  Spring/printemps
 2013

An
 Inquiry
 into
 Educational
 Technologists’
 Conceptions
 of
 Their
 Philosophies

of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

Enquête
 sur
 les
 conceptions
 philosophiques
 de
 l'enseignement
 et
 de
 la

technologie
 élaborées
 par
 les
 technologues
 de
 l’éducation

Heather
 Kanuka,
 University
 of
 Alberta

Erika
 E.
 Smith,
 University
 of
 Alberta

Jennifer
 H.
 Kelland,
 University
 of
 Alberta

Abstract

It has been suggested that when we know our philosophy of teaching and technology we then
have the ability to articulate not only what we are doing as educational technologists, but what
we want to achieve with the technologies, and why. And while most educational technologists
would agree that knowing our philosophical orientations is important, do educational
technologists actually know, or can they accurately identify, their teaching and technology
philosophical orientations? We sought to answer these questions by assessing the consistency
between what educational technologists say in collegial deliberations and how they self-identify
their philosophical orientations. The results of this exploratory study provide us with insights on
how educational technologists construe their philosophical orientations of teaching and
technology. Philosophies of teaching and technology are defined in this study as a conceptual
framing that embodies certain values, attitudes and ideologies from which we view the multi-
contextual facets of educational practice.
Résumé

Il a été suggéré que, lorsque nous avons conscience de notre philosophie de l'enseignement et de
la technologie, nous sommes mieux en mesure d’exprimer non seulement ce que nous faisons en
tant que technologues de l'éducation, mais aussi ce que nous cherchons à réaliser avec les
technologies et pourquoi. Si les technologues de l'éducation admettent pour la plupart
l’importance de connaître nos orientations philosophiques, connaissent-ils pour autant ou
peuvent-ils identifier avec précision, leurs orientations philosophiques de l’enseignement et de la
technologie? Nous avons cherché à répondre à ces questions en évaluant la cohérence entre ce
qu’affirment les technologues de l'éducation en contexte de débat professionnel et la manière
Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

  1
CJLT/RCAT
 Vol.
 39(2)

dont ils identifient eux-mêmes leurs propres orientations philosophiques. Les résultats de cette
étude exploratoire nous donnent un aperçu de la façon dont les technologues de l'éducation
interprètent leurs orientations philosophiques de l'enseignement et de la technologie. Les
philosophies de l'enseignement et de la technologie sont définies dans cette étude comme un
cadre conceptuel incarnant certaines valeurs, attitudes et idéologies à partir desquelles nous
considérons les aspects multi-contextuels de la pratique éducative.

Introduction

There are a number of reasons why those who are in the field of educational technology today
should understand how to situate themselves with respect to philosophies of teaching and
philosophies of technology. While articulating one’s philosophy of teaching is, generally, an
accepted practice in the field of education, articulating one’s philosophy of technology is not so
widely practiced and/or understood (Chen, 2008). As educational technologists work with
technology in educational contexts, understanding and knowing philosophical orientations
regarding technology is also important. The power of knowing our philosophical orientations lies
in the ability to enable us to be reflective, or to better understand and appreciate our activities.
Reflective practice is more than understanding the impact we are making; it is also knowing the
impact we want to make (Elias & Merriam, 2005). To know what impact we desire, we must ask
ourselves what we believe the purpose of education is, in addition to knowing why we make the
choices we do about the use of technologies in our everyday practices, and what we expect to
achieve with these technologies in relation to our educational aims and goals. Conclusions based
on teacher-belief research have asserted that the interrelationships between beliefs and actions
are what underpin and inspire practice (e.g., Albion, 1999; Albion & Ertmer, 2002; Ertmer,
Gopalakrishnan & Rosse, 2001; Scrimshaw, 2004). This literature suggests that teaching beliefs
strongly influence classroom practices; further literature concludes that teacher-beliefs act as
filters that guide educational practitioners in both their instruction and curricular decision-
making processes (Pajares, 1992; Prawat, 1992). Acknowledging that while much of the past
research may only be telling us half the story (Kane, Sandretto & Heath, 2002), more than two
decades of research continue to indicate that teacher beliefs have an impact on instructional
practice. At a minimum, the past research provides us with insights into the reasons educators act
the way they do (Levin & Wadmany, 2006).
It stands to reason, then, that knowing our philosophy of teaching and technology can provide us
with the ability to articulate not only what we are doing as educational technologists, but what
we want to do and why. Unless we can identify our philosophical orientations (or what we value
in our educational technology practice and research) we will never be able to justify our choices
of activities and strategies.
Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology:
 The
 Necessity
 to
 Understand
 Further

While few would argue against the value of reflecting on our philosophies, educators
infrequently articulate and share their philosophical orientations with their students and/or
colleagues. The importance of recognizing philosophical standpoints comes to light when
examining debates and disagreements revolving around related practices and policies. For
Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

  2
CJLT/RCAT
 Vol.
 39(2)

example, some educational technologists argue that technology should be perceived as a neutral
tool or artefact that serves to extend our human capacities, disputing the notion that a technology
strongly influences our actions. Jonassen (1996) and Clark (1994) are two examples of North
American educational technology scholars advocating the “neutrality” of educational technology
tools. Jonassen asserts that “carpenters use their tools to build things; the tools do not control the
carpenter. Similarly, computers should be used as tools for helping learners build knowledge;
they should not control the learner” (p. 4). Such assertions are also reflected in the seminal work
of Clark (1983; 1985), who argues that it is the instructional strategies, rather than technologies,
that are the key component in effective learning. He argues, in part, that technologies are “mere
vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the
truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (Clark, 1983, p. 445). Such
views advance the notion that the technological artefacts we use for educational purposes are
neutral tools, employed simply to meet the aims and objectives of the educational practitioners
teaching with them.
Clark’s view prompted a widely followed and widely cited debate with Kozma (1994) who
claimed that it is the media themselves that influence learning. Taken to its logical extreme, this
view positions media and technology as literal “causes” of learning (or of any other outcome or
observable change in its audience). Understood in these terms, this view can be labelled as
technological determinism. We have found that fewer educational technologists tend to align
themselves with the technological determinacy view, perhaps because it has tended to have a
negative connotation. In particular, the origins of technological determinism can be associated
with a Marxist class analysis, wherein technology acts as an instrument of dominance used by
the advantaged class over others. Within the field of education, this historical view has led to a
belief that technology could be employed as a means of oppressing students. For example,
Mumford’s (1934) Technics and Civilization was one of the first works to draw this kind of
analysis. As of the 1970s, Mumford was joined by other critics – including Winner (1977), Ihde
(1979), and Borgmann (1984) – responding to the changing political climate of the day. Both
before and during this period, Marcuse (1964) and Foucault (1977) also became influential
critics of technological determinism (Feenberg, 1999).
Ultimately, the focus of the debate between Clark and Kozma becomes pointless – clearly, both
start out from different philosophical premises. Their debate revolves around the means rather
than the ends of education; a much more meaningful debate would be on their conceptual
framing of the values from which they view the many aspects of education, including the field of
educational technology.
Underpinning our philosophical orientation on education and technology, teaching and its
corollary, learning, is the desire to effect a transformation of some kind. The transformation(s)
we desire to bring about with our instructional activities are based on what we believe should
happen through our practices. This, in turn, is reflected in whether we choose to use technologies
and, if so, how we will use them. When we do not acknowledge our philosophical orientation,
other motivations and patterns may come to the fore (Zinn, 1990). For example, if a
practitioner’s decisions about teaching and technology are not guided by their educational aims
and goals, decisions to use technologies may be based on the immediacy and urgency brought
forward by technological hype (Kanuka, 2008). Problems arise when these strategies result in
incongruence and tensions in values and action among instructors, administrators and students
Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

  3
CJLT/RCAT
 Vol.
 39(2)

that revolves around the means rather than the ends of education (Elias & Merriam, 2005; Zinn,
1990). When such conflicts exist between values and practice, realizing the possibilities of what
technologies can provide becomes difficult to achieve. As such, it is important to identify what
we value.
The purpose of this study was exploratory in nature, designed to gain further understandings
about how educational technologists’ construe their philosophical orientations. The objectives
were threefold: (1) to gain insights on educational technologists’ philosophical orientations on
teaching and technology as articulated in collegial deliberations, (2) to search for patterns
between philosophical orientations related to teaching and technology, and (3) to explore the
consistency of educational technologists’ philosophical orientations in collegial deliberations
(their interactions) with the philosophical orientations they personally identify with (beliefs
about educational aims and goals).
This study was limited to an analysis of educational technologists’ beliefs, ideologies and values
(or philosophies) of teaching and technology. We did not investigate teaching perspectives, as
defined by Mead (1938; see also Tabachnick & Zeichner, 2003), which include “a coordinated
set of ideas and actions which a person uses” (p. 166). An essential difference between teaching
perspectives and teaching beliefs (attitudes, ideologies and values) is that teaching perspectives
include actions (i.e., teacher behaviour and thought are inseparable) – not merely dispositions to
act as is the case with attitudes, ideologies and values (or teaching beliefs). Analysis of theories
of use and theories in action (see Argyris & Schön, 1974) is beyond the scope of this study.
Elsewhere, this distinction has been dealt with through the use of the label “pedagogical beliefs”
(e.g., Chen, 2008).
Background
 to
 the
 Study

In previous studies (Kelland & Kanuka, 2008; Kanuka & Kelland, 2008), we brought together
Canadian e-learning administrators and researchers to discuss effective uses of technologies in
the higher education sector. Three conclusions emerged from this research: (1) beliefs about
educational technology are many, and are varied if not polarized; (2) policymakers and
administrators concerned with implementing technologies should carefully consider each
position for effective administration and policy-making; and (3) it is unlikely that educational
technology experts will ever reach consensus on the influence and purpose of information and
communication technologies within institutions of higher education because of the differing
pedagogical beliefs held by the participants about teaching and technology. But do the
participants know, and can they accurately identify, their teaching and technology beliefs? – Or
more accurately their philosophical orientations? Building on this prior work, in this study we
sought to explore this question further by assessing the consistency between what educational
technologists say in collegial deliberations and how they self-identify their teaching and
technology philosophical orientations.
Philosophies of teaching and technology are defined in this study as a conceptual framing that
embodies certain values, attitudes and ideologies from which we view the many aspects of
education (Zinn, 1990), including the field of educational technology. The underpinning
assumption of this study is that philosophies are necessary to avoid focusing on what to do with
technologies without examining sufficiently why we should do it.
Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

  4
CJLT/RCAT
 Vol.
 39(2)

Research
 Design
 and
 Methods

The philosophical frameworks used to guide the study included orientations towards teaching
(Elias & Merriam, 1980; 1995; 2005) and technology (Dahlberg, 2004). There are various
philosophical frameworks that could have been used to frame this study (e.g., Apps, 1973 or
Beder, 1989 for teaching philosophies; or Dusek, 2006; Feenberg, 2001, 2002; Ferre, 1995; Idhe,
1979 for technology philosophies). The Elias and Merriam (1995) framework was selected
because it has tended to be widely used within the fields of adult and higher education since its
first edition (Elias & Merriam, 1980). The Dahlberg framework was selected after a pilot for this
study was conducted. A brief overview of each framework used in this study is provided in this
next section.
It is important to note first, however, that personal philosophies or philosophical orientations
toward education and technology are not necessarily the same as the broader ideas and
frameworks articulated by philosophers (for instance, those discussed by Marcuse (1964) or
Heidegger (1977) in their philosophical works). Indeed, it would be insufficient to regard such
philosophers as falling within a particular set orientation or determinism categorically, and this is
not our intention. Rather, the intent is to acknowledge the influence of such philosophical notions
and thinkers as they may be reflected in individual orientations to education and technology. As
such, it is important to acknowledge the difference between philosophers of technology and
education, and the broader connections that may exist between these ideas and the beliefs
articulated by practitioners more specifically.
Philosophical
 Orientations
 Regarding
 Technology

Our research suggests that as educational technologists, there is an inclination to align ourselves
with one of three orientations: uses determination, social determination, and technological
determination (Dahlberg, 2004; see also Dusek, 2006; Feenberg, 2001, 2002; Ferre, 1995;
Kanuka, 2008).
Uses determination
Within this position, emphasis is placed on the importance of human uses of technologies.
Technologies are viewed as neutral tools, through which our capacities can be extended. As the
users of these tools, we determine the effects of technological artifacts. This perspective
originally emerged as a response to the pessimism of the Frankfurt School, for example by
responding to Kulturkritik through a “turn towards the uses (or readings) of the media”
(Dahlberg, 2004, para. 6), and has become an ascendant view of technology in North America
because it emphasises that, as individuals, we have control and autonomy over technology
(Morley, 1989).
Social determination
This position emphasizes the ways in which technologies are socially embedded and constituted,
and is mainly concerned with the creation and integration of technological artifacts within social
systems and cultural contexts. As such, social choices are seen to shape the form and content of
technological artefacts (Dahlberg, 2004). Technologies, then, are both affected by the social
construction of technological artifacts and are embedded within social structures. Educators with
Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

  5
CJLT/RCAT
 Vol.
 39(2)

this orientation place importance on the way social and technological uses shape the form and
content of the learning experiences. Peter Drucker, for example, over a decade ago said in an
interview with Forbes Magazine that social changes would result in the physical presence of
universities ceasing to exist within ten years (Forbes Magazine, March 1997.). Today, futurists
continue to make such forecasts, with for example the introduction of Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCs) as the unbundling and rebundling of universities (see, for example,
http://hackeducation.com/2012/12/03/top-ed-tech-trends-of-2012-moocs/).
Technological determination
Within this position, technology is viewed as a causal agent that determines our actions and plays
a pivotal role in social change. The overriding assumption underpinning this orientation is that
technology influences our practices and experiences and negatively impacts society. Although
not often given the label of technological determinists, scholars who view technology as
positively influencing our education systems also reflect the technological determinist view. For
instance, in the area of e-learning, Garrison and Anderson (2003) assert that educational
technologies can positively transform learning experiences, subsequently improving the quality
of these learning experiences. The rationale underlying this belief rests on the notion that the
technology itself has the potential to facilitate learning. As mentioned above, technological
determination has tended to have a negative connotation, since some critics argue that it reduces
all other factors to technology – often regarding technology in itself as a force for good or evil.
Non-reductionist
Analogous to other, perhaps better known, philosophers of technology (e.g., Dusek, 2004,
Feenberg, 2001; Ihde, 1979), Dahlberg (2004) posits that in order to find alternative viewpoints
of technology beyond those within the determinations outlined above, we must move toward a
non-reductionist, multi-determination perspective. Here Dahlberg argues that to avoid viewing
technology “as either autonomous ‘things’ or amorphous ‘no-things,’ it is important to view
them as both constituted within and impacting upon social relations and cultural meanings”
(2004, para. 39). He notes further that, in reality, there is no singular cause for the effects of
technology, concluding that we need theories that account for the complexity and multiplicity of
determinations. Such a non-reductionist or multi-determinacy view would be sensitive to the
“complex interplay between multiple events” (para. 41), recognizing that each determination is
embedded and inter-linked.
Schools influencing philosophy of technology
In addition to understanding Dahlberg’s particular description of determination(s), it is important
to recognize how philosophers from different traditions have contributed to developing
philosophy of technology more broadly. As Dusek (2009) notes, influences have come from
various schools:
There are contributions to philosophy of technology not only in the analytical and
linguistic vein, as well as from the phenomenological, existential and hermeneutic
traditions; there have also been further contributions from British social constructionists,
French postmodernists and American pragmatists. (para. 12)
Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

  6
CJLT/RCAT
 Vol.
 39(2)

As Dusek (2009) illustrates, it is important to recognize and acknowledge contributions to
philosophies of technology from post-positivist/analytic (e.g., Kuhn, 1996), phenomenological
(e.g., Husserl, 1970), hermeneutic (e.g., Heidegger, 1977), critical theory (e.g., Feenberg, 2001,
2002; Habermas, 1970), pragmatic (e.g., Dewey, 1938), and social construction of technology
(SCOT) (e.g., Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1987) stances. While it is not within the scope of this
study to consider each of these traditions, it is important to note that, just as Dahlberg calls for
moving towards non-reductionist or multi-determinations perspectives of technology, Dusek
(2009) looks toward an integrated philosophy of technology that acknowledges the intersection
of various philosophical approaches to technology, to further develop the overall field of
philosophy of technology (which is relatively recent). To this end, just as the theme of this
special issue portrays, studies such as this one that endeavour to investigate patterns and
overlapping of different philosophical orientations may work to delve further into this issue of
understanding philosophies from multiple and often intersecting vantage points.
Philosophical
 Orientations
 Towards
 Teaching
 in
 Higher
 Education

The philosophical orientations for teaching used in this study are based primarily on the writings
of Elias and Merriam (1980; 1995; 2005), but also incorporate Zinn (1990), Draper (1993), and
Brameld (1969). Elias and Merriam present six orientations to teaching philosophies for adult
learners. Each orientation includes the historical grounding as well as basic principles for each
orientation.
Liberal/perennial
This orientation is the oldest philosophy of education, stemming historically from the classical
Greek philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. As such, early education in the
Western world was guided by this philosophy. There are two primary aims of educators holding
these orientations: 1) to search for truth, and 2) to develop good and moral people. According to
this orientation, educated people should possess an aesthetic sense, moral values, and a religious
dimension, rational and intellectual capabilities as a well as wisdom. Twentieth century
philosophers influencing this viewpoint include Adler (1937), Maritain (1943), Van Doren
(1943), and Hutchins (1953; 1968).
Progressive
This orientation aims to develop personal growth and the promotion of a better society. Preferred
teaching methods focus on problem-solving, as well as experiential or situational approaches. To
this end, curriculum is typically organized around situations and problems that relate to the
experiences of the learners. Personal enlightenment and democratic cooperation are the focus of
learning activities. Influential exponents of pragmatism and progressive thought (related to
education) include Dewey (1910; 1916; 1938) and James (1909). Elements of progressive
thought are found in the writings of several theorists in the field of adult and higher education,
such as Bergevin (1967), Knowles (1970), Houle (1972), and Lindemen (1956).
Behaviourist
Although it has lost much prestige since its heyday in the 1950s, within this orientation, the
ultimate goal is to bring about measureable and observable changes in behavior. Methods of
instruction begin with specific objectives, and incorporate rewards and/or punishments related to
Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

  7
CJLT/RCAT
 Vol.
 39(2)

the demonstration of these set behavioral objectives. Learning is subject-centred, focused largely
on the content. Examples of well-known behaviourial methods include mastery learning,
personalized systems of instruction, individually guided instruction, and individually prescribed
instruction. Early behaviourists include Watson (1914) and Thorndike (1932), but perhaps the
most influential and well-known behaviorist is Skinner (1938). Notably, contemporary
behaviourist Tyler (1949) is known for needs assessments in curriculum and instruction.
Humanist
The aim of this orientation is to foster individual growth and self-actualization. Important
constructs emphasized are freedom and autonomy, trust, active cooperation and participation,
and self-directed learning, both in class and in society generally. Foundational thinkers
influencing this orientation include philosophers from the Renaissance and Enlightenment, such
as Erasmus and Voltaire, and more recently existential humanists, such as Heidegger (1977),
Sartre (1949), and Camus (1940; 1942; 1951). Additionally, Third Force psychologists who have
been equally responsible for the development of this approach include Rogers (1967), Fromm
(1968), Knowles (1970), and Maslow (1976).
Radical
Within this orientation, the overarching aim is the convergence of educational and political
action to bring about change in the political, economic, and social order. Influential figures
within this orientation include Counts (1932), Holt (1967), Brameld (1969), Kozol (1972), and
Goodman (1994). Other influential contemporary radical/critical educators also include Friere
(1973) and Mezirow (1991).
Analytical
The primary aim of the analytical orientation is develop rationality via the transmission of truth
that is morally, socially, and politically neutral. Thinkers influencing this view include Scheffler
(1960), Peters (1967), and Green (1971).
Methods
 and
 Data
 Collection

To achieve the objectives of this study, data were collected through semi-structured group
deliberations with colleagues (referred to as “collegial deliberations”) and individual
identification of philosophical constructs regarding orientations on teaching (Elias & Merriam,
1995) and technology (Dahlberg, 2004). Both data sets were then analyzed, comparing the
philosophical orientations identified in the collegial deliberations with how participants
identified their dominant philosophical orientations.
The philosophical identification instrument (see Appendix A) was developed to assist
participants with identification of their orientations for teaching and technology. A difficulty
noted in prior research revolves around collecting data on pedagogical beliefs (or our values,
attitudes and ideologies). In particular, philosophies are often tacitly held and difficult to
articulate (Chen, 2008). Researchers have noted this limitation and argued that it is inadequate to
investigate pedagogical beliefs solely based on “practitioner talk” (e.g., Kane, et al., 2002;
Pajares, 1992). In an attempt to minimize this problem, we developed an instrument to assist the
participants in moving their pedagogical beliefs from tacitly held to explicitly stated.
Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

  8
CJLT/RCAT
 Vol.
 39(2)

Fourteen participants whose area of expertise is educational technology participated in the study;
however, four participants were removed from the data analysis for this study due to insufficient
contributions to determine philosophical orientations. Four scenarios of the benefits and
drawbacks of teaching with technology within the higher education sector guided the data
collection process for the collegial deliberations. The collegial deliberations were videotaped.
The following week the participants were sent a form to complete via email, asking participants
to self-identify and rank their philosophical orientations.
Data from the videotapes were transcribed. Coding sheets using Elias and Merriam’s (1980;
1995) and Dalhberg’s (2004) frameworks were developed and used to identify participants’
philosophical orientations (see Appendix A). The researchers then coded the transcripts for each
participant individually and debriefing between researchers followed. Once agreement (or
agreement to disagree) was confirmed between researcher coding for the collegial deliberations,
coding was then assessed against the participants’ self-ranking.
Results

The researchers’ analysis and coding of the transcripts concluded with consensus. In regard to
identifying teaching philosophies of the participants, researcher consensus was initially arrived at
for eight out of ten of the participants. On the technological philosophies, initial researcher
consensus was arrived at for nine out of ten of the participants (Table 1). For the philosophical
orientations where coding non-consensus occurred, a decision was made to override the outlier
codes (see Table 1 for original coding results).
Table 1: Results of Researcher Coding with Participant Self-Ranking
Participant Coder 1 Coder 2 Coder 3
Self-ranking
1. Behaviorist Humanist Humanist Humanist
Social determination Uses determination Uses determination Uses determination

2. Behaviorist Humanist Humanist Humanist
Non-reductionist Uses determination* Non-reductionist Non-reductionist

3 Radical Radical Radical Radical
Technological Technological Technological Technological
determination determination determination determination

4 Behaviorist Behaviorist Behaviorist Progressive*
Social determination Social determination Social determination Social determination

5 Humanist Humanist Humanist Humanist
Technological Uses determination Uses determination Uses determination
determination

6 Humanist Humanist Humanist Humanist
Uses determination Uses determination Uses determination Uses determination
Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

  9
CJLT/RCAT
 Vol.
 39(2)

7 Radical Radical Radical Radical
Social determination Social determination Social determination Social determination

8 Liberal Liberal Humanist* Liberal
Technological Technological Technological Technological
determination determination determination determination

9 Humanist Humanist Humanist Humanist
Technological Technological Technological Technological
determination determination determination determination

10 Progressive Radical Radical Radical
Social determination Social determination Social determination Social determination

* Coding overridden

It should be noted at this point that studies (similar in design to this study) sometimes use
multiple raters or coders, working independently to rate the same transcriptions. A comparison of
consistency between these raters is then used quantify inter-rater reliability. However, this
practice has been shown, at best, to be imprecise, and at perhaps at worst potentially misleading
(Stemler, 2004). With this in mind, in combination with the small sample size, implies that such
measures would not be necessarily be a part of this study.
Philosophical
 Orientations

Identification of participant philosophical orientations began by analyzing the collegial
deliberations through assertions and rebuttals to responses on the scenarios presented. Using the
constant comparison techniques of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), we matched
participant contribution against the teaching (Elias & Merriam, 1980; 1995) and technology
(Dahlberg, 2004) frameworks (see Appendix A). As might be expected, identifying teaching
philosophical orientations was, with some participants, not straightforward. For example,
statements and arguments by some participants were not consistent with philosophical
orientations identified. In these cases we counted the number of times the contributions were
made in each philosophical category, assigning the orientation with the greatest number of
contributions. For the majority, however, contributions were consistent when coding
philosophical orientations.
Our coding of teaching philosophies revealed that the majority of educational technologists in
our study fall within the humanist orientation and an (almost) even split between three of the four
technological orientations described above (Table 2).

Philosophies
 of
 Teaching
 and
 Technology

  10